You don't have to be a millionaire to agree with Bobby Zirkin

I am writing to you as a supporter of Bobby Zirkin and to dispute the Dan Rodricks' column "Maybe Bobby Zirkin should be a Republican" (March 20). I disagree for numerous reasons. The discrepancies begin with the subtitle, which mentions the "millionaire's tax." When does an income above $500,000 make someone a millionaire? I feel that this subtitle was a ploy to intrigue interest in the article, even though that statement is obviously false. Yet, this is the least of my issues.

Has Dan ever heard of a conservative Democrat or a liberal Republican? An individual's viewpoint on taxes should not be determined based upon the political party that individuals associate. I am a Republican, and my mother is a Democrat, yet we both strongly agree with Senator Zirkin's view of the new tax legislation. Somehow a Republican and a Democrat can agree.

Mr. Rodricks also asked, "who knew Bobby Zirkin was such a defender of millionaires?" But this issue is not a millionaire vs. non-millionaire issue. This is an issue of principle. I am not a millionaire, and I do not earn nearly $500,000, but I completely agree with Mr. Zirkin's stance on this issue. It is unfair to single out a specific income bracket and make them more responsible for our state's pitfalls, for its deficit. We should all bear the responsibility for rectifying the problem together in a fair manner. It seems unfair to hold 40,000 people more responsible than the millions within our state.

Bobby Zirkin is a hard working, ethical politician, among many other notable characteristics. He fights for all of his constituents, equally, which is not an easy feat. If it were up to me, I would award Bobby the "legislator of the year," and I am not a doctor, I am not his brother, and I am not a millionaire.